almost put this in the "Those Crazy Democrats" thread but then thought better of it https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-vs-the-constitution-11572303822?mod=hp_opin_pos_2 California vs. the Constitution Sacramento can’t run its own foreign policy on climate change. By The Editorial Board Oct. 28, 2019 7:03 pm ET Democrats in California believe they can impose their laws on the rest of the country, and they even think they can ignore the Constitution when it conflicts with their progressive policies. Credit to the Justice Department for attempting to make clear that California isn’t a separate nation under the law, and that climate change isn’t a license for a state to conduct its own foreign policy. Last week the Justice Department sued California for entering a cap-and-trade agreement with Canada’s Quebec province. Since 2013 California and Quebec have jointly held auctions in which businesses may buy permits to emit carbon if they exceed their regulatory cap. Businesses across the two jurisdictions can also trade permits. The problem for California is the small legal detail known as the U.S. Constitution. Article I grants Congress the authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” and prohibits states “without the Consent of Congress” from “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact . . . with a foreign Power.” Under Article II the President has exclusive power to conduct foreign affairs. As the Supreme Court held in Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), “our system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference.” California can decide on its own to comply with emissions reductions that Barack Obama committed the U.S. to in Paris in 2015 even if President Trump has since withdrawn from the agreement. But California can’t make its own agreement with a foreign power to regulate CO2 emissions. Carbon permits are essentially an economic commodity, and more than 220 million permits worth some $3 billion have been exchanged since 2013. Justice notes in its suit that California’s agreement “complexifies and burdens the United States’ task, as a collective of the states and territories, of negotiating competitive international agreements” and encourages other states to form agreements with foreign powers. Imagine the liberal outcry if North Dakota during Mr. Obama’s Presidency had cut an oil pipeline deal with Alberta province. California Democrats say they have a right to negotiate climate accords with foreign governments because President Trump has abdicated on carbon regulation. But the Supreme Court in Zschernig v. Miller (1968) ruled that the federal government has exclusive power over foreign-policy matters it hasn’t directly addressed. President Trump doesn’t want to use trade deals to impose carbon-emissions limits, but Democrats do. California’s cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec could make it harder for a future Democratic President or Congress to do so, especially if other states decide they can go their own way. Elizabeth Warren has promised to ban oil exports, but what if Texas strikes a deal with Mexico? As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)—the Court decision that let the EPA regulate CO2 emissions—“[w]hen a State enters the Union, it surrenders certain sovereign prerogatives. Massachusetts cannot invade Rhode Island to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions [and] it cannot negotiate an emissions treaty with China or India.” Gov. Gavin Newsom says California’s cap-and-trade deal with Quebec is constitutionally kosher because “carbon pollution knows no borders.” We’re glad he’s finally acknowledging that California’s climate policies won’t have a meaningful impact on climate change. And, by the way, California is one of only six states whose carbon emissions have increased since 2013 despite cap and trade. Try as they may, Democrats in Sacramento can’t nullify the Constitution. Let’s hope the courts drive home the point.
So tell us how you are a democrat but you are just embarrassed by the party again? I can really see your deep democratic roots.
I mean, if you are to believe him (your choice of course), you have to just see him as a democrat with a bag over his head. Maybe he thinks Republicans are worse (?) but in any case, he just wants very different action from "his" favorite party. I see Os as follows, though I know others think he is a right-wing troll: Could these actually be Yankees fans? Maybe, maybe not. That's my version of taking him at his word. Whether or not I fully understand, this could be somewhat accurate. But yes, it looks a whole lot like a conservative republican criticizing everything democratic. You can accept the origin story or not.
Mets fans who wear paper bags over their head don't prop everything Yankees, which is what he is essentially doing. I could even give him a pass as actually being intellectually curious if he didn't find and post articles from the most obscure right wing sites and persons. He offers no real solutions for "his favorite party" or even actual examples of these issues, there are actual middle of the road people who have criticism for Dems yet he seldom post those. He could also just be a giant troll but I doubt it because he puts people on ignore and catches feelings.
There were all those "Never Republican" Democrats in the 50's, still mad a Lincoln for freeing the slaves. Maybe he's a caryover from that tradition? Maybe grandpa had a big bow tie and spoke like Foghorn Leghorn and taught ol' Os all about politickin on his knee?
By the way, it was never implemented but the Midwest was way ahead of California on this one. Six Midwestern states and Manitoba had a deal to launch a cap and trade program but the 2010 election ruined the whole thing. Minnesota was flirting with implementing it but the rest have abandoned it and Manitoba elected a Conservative government that promptly killed it on their end. But as a whole, border states have had arrangements with Canadian provinces for years. For example, US states and Canadian provinces have been practicing joint environmental management of bodies of water for decades. Other environmental policies like flood control cooperation are very normal. For example, nutrient runoff in one country will can affect water quality in the other and certain bodies of water will flood states/provinces on both sides. Hell the state that I live in has college tuition reciprocity with Manitoba.
can't speak to some of your other points but if you are referring to the International Joint Commission here, those activities shared by US states and Canadian provinces are the result of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty between the two countries--not individually negotiated agreements of single states with their Canadian counterparts. https://www.ijc.org/en/boundary-waters-treaty-1909
The IJC doesn't cover everything though. And it was actually the model for a lot of regional cooperation that exists beyond the original IJC mandate. For example British Columbia and Washington have lots of bilateral environmental agreements that have no equivalent to the IJC. Both BC and Washington have broader agreements that go into things like medicine and general health care as well. The point is that bilateral cooperation between states and Canadian provinces have been going on for a long time and the article's argument that this sort of thing is unconstitutional is quite silly. These aren't formal treaties. They're voluntary agreements rather than binding treaty arrangements. This is no different than the 20 states that declared their intention to follow the Paris Climate Accord after Trump pulled the US out.
maybe, but what then do you make of the reference to Stevens: "As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)—the Court decision that let the EPA regulate CO2 emissions—'[w]hen a State enters the Union, it surrenders certain sovereign prerogatives. Massachusetts cannot invade Rhode Island to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions [and] it cannot negotiate an emissions treaty with China or India.' " I don't know that "silly" is the right response. Arguments get tested and contested in the courts all the time. And perhaps the California cap-and-trade agreement differs in kind and not just in degree from the bilateral cooperation between states and Canadian provinces that you cite.
These aren't treaties. I feel like that's the part you are missing. These are voluntary agreements between two sovereign entities. States can't sign treaties, that part is true. So California can't go and sign the Kyoto Protocol but it can agree to voluntarily recognize emissions credits from Quebec. Both states pass their own regulations and laws that recognize emissions credits from the other. That's all this is. States have been engaging in these sorts of bilateral gentleman's agreements for a long time with Canadian provinces. When Washington agreed to bilateral whale protection policies, they both made a gentleman's agreement and then passed their own laws that were in line with the agreement.
1. This subject is really boring. It's actually tangentially relevant to my job and I'm not even interested in reading about it. 2. WSJ is trying to make it sexy by casting it as an unconstitutional power grab. If the courts find against California, big deal, the agreement ends. CA can still do cap-and-trade within their borders. If CA wins, big deal, the program continues. It's not like they're going to use the precedent to start enslaving the nation. 3. I don't get the argument that the president would be handicapped by the deal. I'd expect if the president made a deal that was in conflict with this arrangement, it'd be the CA deal that would be obviated. 4. I don't understand what about this story pricked Os' ears. If it's all the socialism you don't like about the current turn of the DNC, well this isn't socialism at all. Cap-and-trade is quintessentially capitalist. Is it that you don't like environmental regulation? You don't like the assertion of states' rights?
The issue is how big and strong California and the effect that it has when it throws its weight around. It’s weird seeing conservatives rip on this highly successful economic juggernaut.
It’s weird hearing “capitalists” complain about trying to stop subsidizing pollution and putting a price on pollution.
